Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthems in Animal Farm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthems in Animal Farm

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. Not independently notable from Animal Farm. Filled with WP:OR and unsourced, with the only exception as two pages referenced from novel. AldezD (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think this is independently notable because Orwell's use of subtle detail in his polemic works was always carefully thought out and he's full of allegory to '30s politics. However I recognise that this is still unsourced and per our usual policy, that's a big problem.

Ideally I'd like to see someone with access to the Orwell sources and commentaries take this article in hand and fix it. There's an interesting and sourceable article here and I would very much like to read it afterwards. As Orwell commentary is pretty much an industry in the UK, for GCSE school level English Lit courses, then there must be any amount of commentary out there and surely there's enough covering this specific topic. It's not my field though, I'm certainly not going to write it, and thus I can't make a strong case for keeping it.

Bringing this up to scratch would be an excellent project for anyone working with UK schools. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate - per the points that Andy Dingley made. It's certainly not in tip-top condition, but with a few hardy souls working on it we can return it to Wikipedia. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is salvageable into Animal Farm, redirect to the section, and work on it there. If it grows too big for that article, it can be split off again. Ansh666 21:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. That neither fixes the problem, nor improves Animal Farm. Notability of the topic isn't the issue here, sourcing for the claims made (i.e. avoiding OR) is. A merged section would have just the same problem. As this article also necessarily quotes heavily from the source anthems, that would introduce a new problem of WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence "whatever is salvageable". The source anthems aren't appropriate for any article IMO (my interpretation of WP:QUOTE), so any Anthems article/section would necessarily be shorter than the present (unless there really is that much to write about it!). Also, nom's main issue was failing WP:N; I'm not convinced by your comments that this should be given any separate treatment as the sections in Animal Farm#Analysis. Ansh666 22:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced original essay. Yeah, WP:ITSINTERESTING. If there is scholarship out there on such things, source it up and try again. Carrite (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this being userfied. It needs to be sourced up though. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what can be sourced and redirect. No indication of individual notability or justification for a distinct article per WP:SPLIT, but I think the songs in the novel and their significance merit a sentence or a short section in the Animal Farm article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've added a bit of sourced content, which I think would be equally at home in the Animal Farm article but which I guess could also be an argument for keeping. There's probably more that could be added from what can be easily found on Google Books. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to cross into copyvio territory as it is. The songs trace the structure of the book, but so does the book as a whole. Why focus on this particular facet? - Richfife (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since additional RS have been provided. Miniapolis 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added reliable sources establish notability. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in here establishes that this is a notable enough topic for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.